The Supreme Court has declared that plea bargaining in illegal drugs cases or a guilty plea to a lesser offense for a lighter penalty “is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court.”
The SC stressed that regardless of the agreement between the prosecution and the accused, it does not follow that “the courts will automatically approve the proposal.”
“Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused,” the high court said, in its clarificatory guidelines on plea-bargaining in drug cases.
An example of plea bargaining in illegal drugs case may involve a person who is caught in possession of fewer than five grams of shabu and thus is charged with violation of Section 11 (possession of dangerous drugs) under Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, with a penalty of 12 years and one day to 20 years and fine.
He may plead guilty to a lesser offense of possession of equipment, instrument, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs with a penalty of six months and one day to four years and a fine.
However, plea bargaining is not allowed for violations of several other provisions of RA 9165 like the importation of dangerous drugs with a penalty of life imprisonment and fines ranging from P500,000 to P10 million.
The SC adopted the clarificatory guidelines on plea bargaining in drug cases during its full court session last Tuesday, July 26.
The salient provisions of the clarificatory guidelines released by the SC Public Information Office provide that “offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by way of a formal written motion filed by the accused in court.”
“The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead guilty to must necessarily be included in the offense charged,” it said.
“Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining that is compliant with the provisions of the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs
Cases, the judge shall order that a drug dependency assessment be administered.
“If the accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after a drug dependency test, then he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not less than six (6) months. Said period shall be credited to his/her penalty and the period of his/her after-care and follow-up program if the penalty is still unserved.
“If the accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, then he/she will be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his/her sentence in jail minus the counseling period at the rehabilitation center,” it added.
The SC also said that as a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court.
Regardless of the mutual agreement of the parties, the acceptance of the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court.
“Though the prosecution and the defense may agree to enter into a plea bargain, it does not follow that the courts will automatically approve the proposal. Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused,” the high court said.
“The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection to the plea bargaining is valid and supported by evidence to the effect that “the offender is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times; or when the evidence of guilt is strong,” it added.
According to the SC, plea bargaining in drug cases shall not be allowed when the proposed plea bargain does not conform to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.
“Judges may overrule the objection of the prosecution if it is based solely on the ground that the accused’s plea bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, though in accordance with the plea bargaining framework issued by the Court if any,” the tribunal pointed out.
“If the prosecution objects to the accused’s plea bargaining proposal due to the circumstances enumerated in item no. 5, the trial court is mandated to hear the prosecution’s objection and rule on the merits thereof. If the trial court finds the objection meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the criminal proceedings,” it said.
“If an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under RA No. 9165, other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall apply,” the guidelines stated.